Professional Democrats Will Never Be Liberals

Filed in National by on February 27, 2018

Have we learned our lesson yet? Professional Democrats and the Democratic Party will not save us. They are not up to the task, and never were. Professional Democrats are happy to be the party in opposition as long as they hold those well-paying positions “leading” the opposition.

This is something the Hillary loyalists still don’t get: We don’t think she’s evil, she’s merely the symbol of everything that’s wrong with the party. Even if she disappeared tomorrow, the centrist groveling would continue. It’s the centrist groveling that’s the problem; Hillary Clinton was merely the avatar for the entire party’s subservience to special, mostly corporate, interests.

The whole point of the Sanders campaign wasn’t to elect Sanders — it was to pressure Clinton into moving left. She refused. She tried to strong-arm support instead of winning it by giving liberals what they wanted, mainly because she doesn’t agree with it. And neither do Professional Democrats.

Which leads us to Texas, where the primaries for November are being held March 6. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attacked a Democratic candidate it deemed too liberal by publishing opposition research on her. I get the DCCC’s point: She’s a phony and almost certainly doomed to defeat. But that’s not why they’re against her. They’re against her because they’re afraid of the negative ads Republicans will run.

That’s how Professional Democrats work — forever running scared of Republican attack ads because at bottom they think Republican voters are capable of being swayed if only Democrats give them someone who’s just like a Republican. It worked once, with Bill Clinton’s re-election (most people don’t remember it, but Clinton won election the first time by pretending to be liberal). The GOP caught on immediately and Democrats have been sucking hind teat ever since.

Professional Democrats still don’t get it — people are looking for fighters, not accommodationists. No change in the world has ever been brought about by reasonable people acting reasonably.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. delacrat says:

    “This is something the Hillary loyalists still don’t get: We don’t think she’s evil, she’s merely the symbol…” – Alby

    Hillary turned Libya into a failed state and African slave market. If past is prologue, that is indicative of what she’d do to the US if given the opportunity, and sufficient Americans took note and voted accordingly.

    Hillary apologists don’t get that she is evil and no mere symbol.

  2. Alby says:

    Ah, now you’re letting your facile ignorance show. Libya was not Hillary’s decision, moron. It was a complex geopolitical calculation designed to get our European allies out of a hole, and they couldn’t do anything without our help because we won’t give them the military technology.

    Crawl back in your hole. You don’t know shit.

  3. RE Vanella says:

    I had this exact conversation with a very good friend of mine before the 2016 election.

    Is Hillary evil?

    The problem is, even if we take Delacrat’s Libya example as relevant (which as Al said it’s probably not), every president and politician is complicit and thereby evil. So it renders the description meaningless.

    By this logic Obama is evil. Now I don’t necessarily disagree. But it means calling a politician evil is totally useless.

  4. jason330 says:

    The “D triple C” as professional Dems call it, is truly a disaster.

    I’m still steaming over this article I read weeks ago.

  5. Arthur says:

    Any professional politician is a problem.

  6. Alby says:

    “But it means calling a politician evil is totally useless.”

    Not if you’re delacrat, the purported human who is no more interesting, informed or curious than a Russian bot. You’ll notice he almost never has anything negative to say about anyone except Democrats.

  7. nathan arizona says:

    “No change in the world has ever been brought about by reasonable people acting reasonably.”

    I get what you’re saying, but “change brought about by unreasonable people acting unreasonably” is not exactly a winning sales pitch. So unless you’re planning an armed rebellion . . . .

  8. Alby says:

    Reasonable people can act unreasonably, and if they don’t, no change occurs.

    This isn’t a sales pitch. Get on board or get the fuck out of the way.

  9. nathan arizona says:

    Get on board what, the train to idiocracy on the left? There’s enough of that on the right. Doesn’t mean I ever thought Hillary was the answer, except to stop Trump in an election between just those two.

  10. Alby says:

    If you can’t see the train, you can’t get on board. So get out of the way.

  11. nathan arizona says:

    I prefer to stay in the way of unreason if I can.

  12. Alby says:

    Here’s the “reasonable” response to mass shootings, according to the DCCC:

    “DCCC Advised Candidates Not To Discuss Gun Control Policy Right After Vegas Shooting…The campaign organization said Democrats should focus on offering thoughts and prayers.”

  13. delacrat says:

    “Libya was not Hillary’s decision,…” – Alby

    Oh yeah,… Iraq was not as much Colin Powell’s decision as “Libya was not Hillary’s”.

    But I don’t recall anyone on this blog similarly rationalizing Colin Powell’s role in ginning up the Iraq war.

  14. jason330 says:

    I’d jump in buy I already spent a decade commenting on all of Bush’s fuck ups.

  15. Alby says:

    In point of fact, Iraq was not Colin Powell’s decision. Do keep going.

    Other than that, I don’t believe this blog existed then. But DO keep going. Do you need another shovel?

  16. nathan arizona says:

    “Thoughts and prayers” is not a reasonable response from either side. The reasonable response is to call for gun control. I’m happy that I’ve been hearing a lot of that.

  17. Alby says:

    I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to link you with the DCCC. They are the “reasonable” Democrats. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re probably not reasonable either, at least not by their standards.

  18. RE Vanella says:

    I knew the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag.

  19. Dana Garrett says:

    Love much of what you say here, Alby, but I’m having trouble understanding this: “The whole point of the Sanders campaign wasn’t to elect Sanders — it was to pressure Clinton into moving left.”

    If that was the point of the Sander’s campaign, then it was a foolish quest. Hillary move to the left? That would never happen. She doesn’t have it in her. She’s deeply imprinted with the centrist stamp and affiliations. That’s partly why she was doomed to fail in the general. The American people had sickened of the status quo. Unfortunately, that sickening wasn’t accompanied by intelligence. Thus we got Trump.

  20. spktruth says:

    Agree with you Dana. Bernie ran to win, it was the Hilary camp along with corporate owned media who delivered millions in free time to Trump and Clinton. Yet, Bernies rallies were huge while Hilary was hoping to get 250. Good news, Bernie plans to run again in 2020, going to Iowa this spring. We have another chance at a real progressive president not corporate owned dem.